Transnational public-private governance initiatives in world politics: Introducing a new dataset

Abstract

This article introduces a new dataset on transnational public-private governance initiatives (TGIs) in world politics. TGIs are institutions in which states and/or intergovernmental organizations cooperate with business and civil society actors to govern transnational problems. Thus, they are a special type of transnational public-private partnership. TGIs have flourished since the late 1990s and, today, govern a broad range of global policy domains, including environmental protection, human rights, health, trade, finance, and security. Yet, existing research lacks the data necessary to map this phenomenon and its variation along dimensions, such as issue areas, governance functions, participation, and institutional design. The Transnational Public-Private Governance Initiatives in World Politics (TGIWP) data is designed for this purpose. It contains detailed information on the scope, functions, participants, and institutional design of 636 TGIs created between 1885 and 2017. I describe the sample generation and discuss coding rules. I also map the proliferation and characteristics of TGIs, and provide an exploratory analysis of the relationship between state participation in TGIs and domestic democracy to show how the new data contributes to enhancing ongoing debates in international relations. The article concludes by discussing how the new dataset may be useful in future research on global governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also the International Environmental Agreements Database Project led by Ronald Mitchell (https://iea.uoregon.edu/, accessed: 12.07.2019).

  2. 2.

    IGOs are traditional intergovernmental organizations, such as the UN, the World Bank, or the World Trade Organization. I define IGOs in accordance with the Correlates of War (COW) Project, which considers an international institution an IGO if it has at least three member states, holds regular plenary meetings at least once every ten years, and possesses a permanent secretariat and corresponding headquarters (Pevehouse et al. 2004). Although we use the IGO definition provided by the COW Project, we also take into account IGOs that are not included in the COW IGO data.

  3. 3.

    See https://www.cslforum.org/cslf/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  4. 4.

    See https://ipeec.org/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  5. 5.

    See https://nbn.org.uk/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  6. 6.

    See http://www.oceannetworks.ca/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  7. 7.

    See https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/tfessd, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  8. 8.

    See https://unfccc.int/news/the-paris-declaration-on-electro-mobility-and-climate-change-and-call-to-actionhttps://unfccc.int/news/the-paris-declaration-on-electro-mobility-and-climate-change-and-call-to-action, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  9. 9.

    See https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/3691, accessed:12.07.2019.

  10. 10.

    See http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/overview/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  11. 11.

    See https://icoca.ch/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  12. 12.

    Other definitions that require governments and/or IGOs to work together with both business and civil society organizations include Reinicke and Deng (2000).

  13. 13.

    See https://www.thepmr.org/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  14. 14.

    See https://globalinvestorcoalition.org/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  15. 15.

    In addition to myself, the research team included eleven graduate and undergraduate students at the Universities of St. Gallen and Zürich. At several points during the conceptualization, planning, and implementation of the data collection, experts in the field of transnational and global governance that formed an advisory group for the project provided comments.

  16. 16.

    See http://gsnetworks.org/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  17. 17.

    See http://climateinitiativesplatform.org/index.php/Welcome, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  18. 18.

    See https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/search/?str=, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  19. 19.

    See https://unfccc.int/process/conferences/pastconferences/bonn-climate-change-conference-june-2013/resources/listhttps://unfccc.int/process/conferences/pastconferences/bonn-climate-change-conference-june-2013/resources/list, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  20. 20.

    See https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnerships/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  21. 21.

    See http://www.sids2014.org/partnerships/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  22. 22.

    See http://www.uia.org/yearbook, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  23. 23.

    For a full list of the TGIs in the sample, see Table A-1 in the online appendix available at the Review of International Organizations’ website.

  24. 24.

    Table A-3 in the online appendix shows how we aggregate the sub-issue area coding of the TGIs in the dataset and the COW Project issue area coding of IGOs to enable a comparison of the distribution of initiatives and organizations across issue areas (Pevehouse et al. 2015). I thank Jon Pevehouse for sharing the most recent version of the COW IGO data prior to its public release.

  25. 25.

    The online appendix provides more detail on how the governance functions of TGIs are coded.

  26. 26.

    For about half of the sample, we collected the same information also for business actors and civil society organizations. However, due to resource limitations we could not extend this part of the data collection to all initiatives in the sample. We intend to complete this information in future research.

  27. 27.

    The online appendix provides more detail on how the institutional design features of TGIs are coded.

  28. 28.

    This new data on IGO and IIGO issue areas, governance functions, participation, and institutional design features was generated under the umbrella of the same project that created the TGIWP data.

  29. 29.

    For example, researchers may use descriptive and inferential network analysis to examine how TGIs are connected through shared state members and examine which initiatives are connected in what ways and why (Westerwinter forthcoming).

  30. 30.

    These and all other numerical summaries of the trends that can be observed in the data should be interpreted with caution. Given the limitations of the sample, the descriptive summaries presented in this section are intended to unveil overall trends among the TGIs in the dataset. The particular numerical values are of lesser importance.

  31. 31.

    I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting to explore the clustering of TGIs in their governance functions in greater detail.

  32. 32.

    The total number of TGIs included in the cluster analysis is 616. Initiatives with missing data on the governance function variables are excluded from this analysis.

  33. 33.

    The maximum numbers of observations taken into account for calculating average participant numbers differ across participant groups and from the total sample size of 636 because of missing data on participants. For the TGIs with missing data on participants, we were able to confirm that their participants fulfill our TGI criteria, but we could not obtain information about specific participants.

  34. 34.

    In terms of number of participants, the UN Global Compact is an outlier among the TGIs in the dataset. To ensure that the descriptive statistics that include information on TGI participants are not driven by this outlier observation, I re-calculate the average participant numbers reported in Tables 12, A-6, and A-7 without taking the UN Global Compact into account. Tables A-8, A-9, A-10, and A-11 in the online appendix present these figures and show that the exclusion of the outlier does not affect the overall patterns in the data.

  35. 35.

    Focusing on transnational climate change governance, Hoffmann (2011) finds no correlation between the actors involved and the functions that governance initiatives perform.

  36. 36.

    The low number of initiatives that have a founding document resonates with the observation of Pattberg et al. (2012), who find that the absence of an establishing protocol, contract, or memorandum of understanding is common among TGIs. This may be due to the circumstance that many TGIs are relatively informal institutional arrangements. One expression of this informality may be the lack of a publicly available founding document. The absence of a founding document may also be driven by the interests of the participants of a TGI that may prefer to keep their involvement and commitments vague. Finally, since the coding of all institutional design variables in the dataset is based on publicly available information, the low proportion of TGIs with a founding document might also be the consequence of governance initiatives that do not publish their founding statements.

  37. 37.

    The analysis is not intended to be a strict replication of Andonova’s (2014) study. Given her focus on transnational partnerships that address sustainable development issues, several of her explanatory variables for state participation in transnational governance are specific to the environment area (e.g. environmental systems stress, domestic environmental strategies and plans). Creating comparable measures for an analysis of state participation in TGIs across a range of issue areas is beyond the scope of this application. Nevertheless, I include several of her key independent variables in my model specifications and discuss how my findings relate to hers as well as the findings of other extant research.

  38. 38.

    In other ongoing work, I examine why states establish TGIs rather than alternative global governance institutions as well as the factors that shape the institutional design of TGIs.

  39. 39.

    I also estimate ordinary least squares models in which the dependent variable is the natural logarithm of states’ participations in TGIs. The results of these analyses are reported in Table A-14 in the online appendix and do not deviate from the findings of my main analysis.

  40. 40.

    I use alternative operationalizations of domestic democracy in robustness analyses, which are reported in Tables A-15 and A-16 in the online appendix. The results of these analyses do not deviate from the findings of my main analysis.

  41. 41.

    See http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/, accessed: 12.07.2019.

  42. 42.

    See https://uia.org/yearbook, accessed: 12.07.2019.

References

  1. Abbott, K.W. (2012). The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 571–590.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abbott, K.W., & Hale, T. (2014). Orchestrating global solutions networks. A guide for organizational entrepreneurs. Innovations, 9(1), 195–212.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Abbott, K.W., & Snidal, D. (2009). The governance triangle: regulatory standards institutions and the shadow of the State. In Mattli, W., & Woods, N. (Eds.) The politics of global regulation (pp. 44–88). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  4. Abbott, K.W., Green, J.F., Keohane, R.O. (2016). Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. International Organization, 70(2), 247–277.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Abbott, K.W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., Zangl, B., Abbott, K.W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., Zangl, B. (2015). Orchestration: global Governance through Intermediaries. In International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 3–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  6. Alter, K.J., & Meunier, S. (2009). The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Andonova, L.B. (2010). Public-private partnerships for the Earth: politics and patterns of hybrid authority in the multilateral system. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 25–53.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Andonova, L.B. (2014). Boomerangs to partnerships? Explaining state participation in transnational partnerships for sustainability. Comparative Political Studies, 47(3), 481–515.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Andonova, L.B. (2017). Governance entrepreneurs international organizations and the rise of global public-private partnerships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Andonova, L.B., & Levy, M.A. (2003). Franchising global governance: making sense of the johannesburg type II partnerships. In Yearbook of international cooperation on environment and development (pp. 19–32). London: Earthscan.

  11. Andonova, L.B., Betsill, M.M., Bulkeley, H. (2009). Transnational climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 9(2), 52–73.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Andonova, L.B., Hale, T.N., Roger, C.B. (2017). National policy and transnational governance of climate change: substitutes or complements? International Studies Quarterly, 61(2), 253–268.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Avant, D. (2016). Pragmatic networks and transnational governance of private military and security services. International Studies Quarterly, 60(2), 330–342.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Avant, D.D., Finnemore, M., Sell, S.K., Finnemore, M. (2010). Who governs the globe? In Avant, D.D., & Sell, S.K. (Eds.) Who governs the globe? (pp. 1–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  15. Avant, D., & Westerwinter, O. (2016). Introduction: networks and transnational security governance. In Avant, D., & Westerwinter, O. (Eds.) The new power politics. Networks and transnational security governance (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  16. Baccini, L., Dür, A., Elsig, M. (2015). The politics of trade agreement design: revisiting the depth-flexibility nexus. International Studies Quarterly, 59(4), 765–775.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Barbieri, K., Keshk, O.M.G., Pollins, B.M. (2009). Trading data: evaluating our assumptions and coding rules. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 26(5), 471–491.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Barnett, M., Pevehouse, J., Raustiala, K. (2016). The future of global governance. Paper prepared for the workshop, The future of global governance? Social Trends Institute, Barcelona, Spain, December 1–3.

  19. Bartley, T. (2007). Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: the rise of transnational private regulation of labor and environmental conditions. American Journal of Sociology, 113(2), 297–351.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Beisheim, M., Liese, A., Lorch, J. (2014). Introduction: transnational partnerships for sustainable development. In Beisheim, M., & Liese, A. (Eds.) Transnational partnerships. Effectively providing for sustainable development? (pp. 3–16). Palgrave: Houndmills.

  21. Benner, T., Reinicke, W.H., Witte, J.Ma. (2004). Multisectoral networks in global governance: towards a pluralistic system of accountability. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 191–210.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Berliner, D., & Prakash, A. (2015). Bluewashing the firm? Voluntary regulations, program design, and member compliance with the united nations global compact. Policy Studies Journal, 43(1), 115–138.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bernauer, T., Bohmelt, T., Koubi, V. (2013). Is there a democracy-civil society paradox in global environmental governance? Global Environmental Politics, 13(1), 88–107.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Betsill, M.M., & Bulkeley, H. (2004). Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program. International Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 471–493.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Börzel, T.A., & Risse, T. (2005). Public-private partnerships: effective and legitimate tools of transnational governance? In Grande, E., & Pauly, L.W. (Eds.) Complex sovereignty: reconstituting political authority in the twenty-first century (pp. 195–216). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  26. Brinkerhoff, J.M. (2002). Partnerships for international development. Rhetoric or results? Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Bäckstrand, K., Betsill, M., Compagnon, D., Duffy, R., Kolk, A., Hoffmann, M., Levy, D., Newell, P., Milledge, T., Paterson, M., Pattberg, P., Vandeveer, S. (2012). Governing climate change transnationally: assessing the evidence from a database of sixty initiatives. Environment and Planning C, 30(4), 591–612.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L.B. , Betsill, M.M., Compagnon, D., Hale, T., Hoffmann, M.J., Newell, P., Paterson, M., Roger, C., Vanderveer, S.D. (2014). Transnational climate change governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bull, B, & McNeill, D. (2007). Development issues in global governance. Public-private partnerships and market multilateralism. Routledge.

  30. Cameron, C.A., & Trivedi, P.K. (2013). Regression analysis of count data, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Carpenter, R. (2011). Charli vetting the advocacy agenda: network centrality and the paradox of weapons norms. International Organization, 65(1), 69–102.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cashore, B., Auld, G., Newsom, D. (2004). Governing through markets: forest certification and the emergence of non-state authority. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Chan, S., & Müller, C. (2012). Explaining the geopgraphic, thematic and organizational differentiation of partnerships for sustainable development. In Pattberg, P., Biermann, F., Chan, S., Mert, A. (Eds.) Public-private partnerships for sustainable development. Emergence, influence and legitimacy (pp. 44–66). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

  34. Chan, S., Falkner, R., Goldberg, M., van Asselt, H. (2018). Effective and geographically balanced? An output-based assessment of non-state climate actions. Climate Policy, 18(1), 24–35.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chaturvedi, A., Green, P.E., Douglas Carroll, J. (2001). K-modes clustering. Journal of Classification, 18(1), 35–55.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dingwerth, K. (2007). The new transnational transnational governance and democratic legitimacy. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Downs, G.W., Rocke, D.M., Barsoom, P.N. (1996). Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization, 50(3), 379–406.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Eichenauer, V.Z., & Reinsberg, B. (2017). What determines earmarked funding to international development organizations? Evidence from the new multi-bi aid data. Review of International Organizations, 12(2), 171–197.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Grant, A.J., & Taylor, I. (2004). Global governance and conflict diamonds: the Kimberley process and the quest for clean gems. The Round Table, 93(375), 385–401.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Green, J.F. (2014). Rethinking private authority agents and entrepreneurs in global environmental governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Green, J.F. (2017). Blurred lines: public-private interactions in carbon regulations. International Interactions, 432(1), 103–128.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Haas, P.M. (2004). Addressing the global governance deficit. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), 1– 15.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hale, T.N., & Mauzerall, D.L. (2004). Thinking globally and acting locally: can the Johanesburg partnerships coordinate action on sustainable development? Journal of Environment and Development, 13(3), 220–239.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hale, T., & Roger, C. (2014). Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Review of International Organizations, 9(1), 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hanrieder, T. (2015). WHO orchestrates? Coping with competitors in global health. In Abbott, K.W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., Zangl, B. (Eds.) International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 191–213). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  46. Haufler, V. (2010). The Kimberley process certification scheme: an innovation in global governance and conflict prevention. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 403–416.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Haufler, V. (2015). Orchestrating peace? Civil war, conflict minerals and the United Nations Security Council. In Abbott, K.W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., Zangl, B. (Eds.) International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 214–236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  48. Hoffmann, M.J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2015). Delegation and pooling in international organizations. Review of International Organizations, 10(3), 305–328.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Jacobson, H.K., Reisinger, W.M., Mathers, T. (1986). National entanglements in international governmental organizations. American Political Science Review, 80 (1), 141–159.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jaggers, K., & Gurr, T.R. (1995). Transitions to democracy: tracking democracy’s ‘Third Wave’ with the polity III data. Journal of Peace Research, 32(2), 167–214.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kahler, M. (2017). Domestic sources of transnational climate governance. International Interactions, 43(1), 156–174.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kahler, M. (2018). From complex interdependence to complex governance. Unpublished manuscript, American University.

  54. Kaul, I. (2006). Exploring the policy space between markets and states. Global public-private partnerships. In Kaul, I., & Conceicao, P. (Eds.) The new public finance: responding to global challenges (pp. 219–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  55. Keck, M.E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Keohane, R.O., & Nye, J.S. (1971). Transnational relations and world politics: an introduction. International Organization, 25(3), 329–349.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Keohane, R.O., & Nye, J.S. (2000). Introduction. In Nye, J.S., & Donahue, J.D. (Eds.) Governance in a globalizing World (pp. 1–41). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

  58. Khagram, S. (2003). Neither temples nor tombs. A Global analysis of large dams. Environment, 45(4), 28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Koremenos, B. (2016). The continent of international law: explaining agreement design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Krisch, N. (2017). Liquid authority in global governance. International Theory, 9(2), 237–260.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lake, D.A. (2010). Rightful rules: authority, order, and the foundations of global governance. International Studies Quarterly, 54(3), 587–613.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Lall, R. (2017). Beyond institutional design: explaining the performance of international organizations. International Organization, 71(2), 245–280.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Long, S.J. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  64. McCubbins, M.D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165–179.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Michaelowa, K., & Michaelowa, A. (2017). Transnational climate governance initiatives: designed for effective climate change mitigation? International Interactions, 43(1), 129–155.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Mitchell, R.B., & Rothmann, S.B. (2006). Creating large-N data from qualitative information: lessons from international environmental agreements. Paper prepared for delivery at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. September 1–3.

  67. MSI Integrity & Duke Human Rights Center at the Kenan Institute for Ethics. (2017). The new regulators? Assessing the landscape of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Findings from a database of transnational standard-setting multi-stakeholder initiatives.

  68. Muraskin, W. (2002). The last years of the CVI and the birth of GAVI. In Reich, M.R. (Ed.) Public-private partnerships for public health (pp. 115–168). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  69. Pattberg, P.H. (2007). Private institutions and global governance the new politics of environmental sustainability. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Pattberg, P., Biermann, F., Chan, S., Mert, A. (2012). Introduction: partnerhsips for sustainable development. In Pattberg, P., Biermann, F., Chan, S., Mert, A. (Eds.) Public-private partnerships for sustainable development. Emergence, influence and legitimacy (pp. 1–18). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

  71. Perkins, R., & Neumayer, E. (2010). Geographic variations in the early diffusion of corporate voluntary standards: comparing ISO 14001 and the global compact. Environment and Planning A, 42(2), 347–365.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Pevehouse, J.C. (2005). Democracy from above regional organizations and democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Pevehouse, J.C., Nordstrom, T., Warnke, K. (2004). The correlates of war 2 international governmental organizations data version 2.0. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 21(2), 101–119.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Pevehouse, J.C., McManus, R., Nordstrom, T., Shannon, M., Widmann, M. (2015). Codebook for correlates of war 3 international governmental organizations data set version 3.0. Manuscript: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

  75. Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2006). The voluntary environmentalists. Green clubs, ISO 14001 and voluntary environmental regulations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2007). Investing up: FDI and the cross-country diffusion of ISO 14001 management systems. International Studies Quarterly, 51(3), 723–744.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2014). Global private regimes, domestic public law: ISO 14001 and pollution reduction. Comparative Political Studies, 47(3), 369–394.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Raustiala, K., & Victor, D.G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58(2), 277–309.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Reinicke, W.H., & Deng, F. (2000). Critical choices. The united nations, networks and the future of global governance. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Reinsberg, B., & Westerwinter, O. (2019). The global governance of international development: Documenting the rise of multi-stakeholder partnerships and identifying underlying theoretical explanations. Review of International Organizations online first.

  81. Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Bringing Transnational Relations Back. In Risse-Kappen, T. (Ed.) Introduction. Bringing transnational relations back. Non-state actors, domestic structure, and international institutions (pp. 3–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  82. Roger, C., & Dauvergne, P. (2016). The rise of transnational governance as a field of study. International Studies Review, 18(3), 415–437.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Rosenau, J.N. (1992). Governance, order, and change in world politics. In Rosenau, J.N., & Czempiel, E.-O. (Eds.) Governance without government: order and change in world politics (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  84. Ruggie, J.G. (2001). global_governance.net: the global compact as learning network. Global Governance, 7(4), 371–378.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Schäferhoff, M. (2014). Partnerships for health – special focus: service provision. In Beisheim, M., & Liese, A. (Eds.) Transnational partnerships. Effectively provising for sustainable development? (pp. 45–62). New York: Palgrave.

  86. Schäferhoff, M., Campe, S., Kaan, C. (2009). Transnational public-private partnerships in international relations: making sense of concepts, research frameworks, and results. International Studies Review, 11(3), 451–474.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Sending, O.J., & Neumann, I.B. (2006). Governance to governmentality: analyzing NGOs, states, and power. International Studies Quarterly, 50(3), 651–672.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Shanks, C., Jacobson, H.K., Kaplan, J.H. (1996). Inertia and change in the constellation of international governmental organizations, 1981-1992. International Organization, 50(4), 593–627.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Sikkink, K. (2005). Patterns of dynamic multilevel governance and the insider-outsider coalition. In della Porta, D., & Tarrow, S. (Eds.) Transnational protest and global activism (pp. 151–173). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

  90. Simmons, B.A., Dobbins, F., Garrett, G. (2006). Introduction: the international diffusion of liberalism. International Organization, 60(4), 781–810.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Steinberg, R.H. (2002). In the shadow of law or power? Consensus-based bargaining and outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization, 56(2), 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Stone, R.W. (2011). Controlling institutions: international organizations and the global economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squadrito, T., Jönsson, C. (2013). The opening up of international organizations transnational access in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Vabulas, F., & Snidal, D. (2013). Organization without delegation: informal intergovernmental organizations (IIGOs) and the spectrum of intergovernmental arrangements. Review of International Organizations, 8(2), 193–220.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue. The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Vogel, D. (2009). The private regulation of global corporate conduct. In Mattli, W., & Woods, N. (Eds.) The politics of global regulation (pp. 151–188). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  97. Wallace, M., & David Singer, J. (1970). Intergovernmental organization in the global system, 1815-1964: a quantitative description. International Organization, 24 (2), 239–287.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Westerwinter, O. (forthcoming). The evolution of transnational governance overlaps: a network approach. In Wood, S., Schmidt, R., Abbott, K.W., Eberlein, B., Meidinger, E. (Eds.) Transnational business governance interactions: advancing marginalized actors and enhancing regulatory quality. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  99. Widerberg, O., & Stripple, J. (2016). The expanding field of cooperative initiatives for decarbonization: a review of five databases. WIREs Climate Change, 7 (4), 486–500.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Witte, J.M., Streck, C., Benner, T. (2003). The road from Johannesburg: what future for partnerships in global environmental governance? In Witte, J.M., Streck, C., Benner, T. (Eds.) Progress or peril? Partnerships and networks in global environmental governance. The post-Johannesburg agenda (pp. 59–84). Washington: Global Public Policy Institute.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Swiss Network for International Studies and the Basic Research Fund of the University of St. Gallen. I also gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. I would like to thank the excellent research assistance of Christian Andres, Ruslan Aybazov, Tino Good, Stefano Jud, Rosie Keller, Laura Leibundgut, Giulia Parini, Bernhard Reinsberg, Dominik Schneeberger, Johannes Schultz, and Keto Schumacher in preparing this article. I also thank Ken Abbott, Liliana Andonova, Michael Barnett, Tom Biersteker, Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, Philipp Genschel, Tom Hale, Virginia Haufler, Dirk Lehmkuhl, Miles Kahler, Erasmus Kersting, Christopher Kilby, Barb Koremenos, Lisa Martin, Katja Michaelowa, Christine Neuhold, Joost Pauwelyn, Jon Pevehouse, Kal Raustiala, Bernhard Reinsberg, Duncan Snidal, Jonas Tallberg, Felicity Vabulas, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions. I especially thank Sharlene Westerwinter for sharing her thoughts and for always supporting me.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Westerwinter.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(CSV 320 bytes)

(CSV 234 bytes)

(CSV 130 KB)

(CSV 63.1 KB)

(R 145 KB)

(PDF 138 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Westerwinter, O. Transnational public-private governance initiatives in world politics: Introducing a new dataset. Rev Int Organ 16, 137–174 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09366-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Transnational public-private governance initiatives
  • Global governance
  • Institutional design
  • Data

JEL Classification

  • F50
  • F53
  • F55